Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30847112›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2019

Framing pictures: A conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison.

Tim R Hofmeester, Joris P G M Cromsigt, John Odden, Henrik Andrén, Jonas Kindberg, John D C Linnell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Chimpanzees (Ecology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cameras orEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tim R HofmeesterDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2101-5482
Joris P G M CromsigtDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8632-9469
John OddenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research Oslo Norway.
Henrik AndrénGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Riddarhyttan Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5616-2426
Jonas KindbergDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1445-4524
John D C LinnellNorwegian Institute for Nature Research Trondheim Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8370-5633

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obtaining reliable species observations is of great importance in animal ecology and wildlife conservation. An increasing number of studies use camera traps (CTs) to study wildlife communities, and an increasing effort is made to make better use and reuse of the large amounts of data that are produced. It is in these circumstances that it becomes paramount to correct for the species- and study-specific variation in imperfect detection within CTs. We reviewed the literature and used our own experience to compile a list of factors that affect CT detection of animals. We did this within a conceptual framework of six distinct scales separating out the influences of (a) animal characteristics, (b) CT specifications, (c) CT set-up protocols, and (d) environmental variables. We identified 40 factors that can potentially influence the detection of animals by CTs at these six scales. Many of these factors were related to only a few overarching parameters. Most of the animal characteristics scale with body mass and diet type, and most environmental characteristics differ with season or latitude such that remote sensing products like NDVI could be used as a proxy index to capture this variation. Factors that influence detection at the microsite and camera scales are probably the most important in determining CT detection of animals. The type of study and specific research question will determine which factors should be corrected. Corrections can be done by directly adjusting the CT metric of interest or by using covariates in a statistical framework. Our conceptual framework can be used to design better CT studies and help when analyzing CT data. Furthermore, it provides an overview of which factors should be reported in CT studies to make them repeatable, comparable, and their data reusable. This should greatly improve the possibilities for global scale analyses of (reused) CT data.

Indexed as

animal characteristicsdetectabilityenvironmental variablesmammal monitoringreuse of datatrail camera

Identifiers

PMID30847112
PMCPMC6392353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.